urbandreamer
recession proof
27 March 2012: The Beach needs dozens more similar-scaled buildings as this one--many sites could be redeveloped, perhaps with sexier architecture though like Abacus Lofts for example. No site action yet.
Toronto Lakehouse Beach Residences | 19.4m | 6s | Reserve Properties | RAW Design
- Thread starter Edward Skira
- Start date
btg
New Member
While this death watch eagerly anticipating a project that hasn't even had a final report from staff yet?
Abacus Lofts are the worst example to follow in The Beach!
AlbertC
Superstar
http://www.thestar.com/news/article/1173534--the-beach-will-the-condo-boom-kill-it-or-save-it
The Beach: Will the condo boom kill it or save it?
Published On Fri May 04 2012
Kate Allen
Staff Reporter
The Beach: Will the condo boom kill it or save it?
Published On Fri May 04 2012
Kate Allen
Staff Reporter
RocketAppliances
Active Member
TEYCC approved the final report yesterday.
http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2012.TE16.3
From OpenFile:
Source: http://toronto.openfile.ca/blog/toronto/2012/toronto-east-york-community-council-votes-unanimously-allow-licks-development
Gotta agree with Perks on this one.
http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2012.TE16.3
From OpenFile:
Source: http://toronto.openfile.ca/blog/toronto/2012/toronto-east-york-community-council-votes-unanimously-allow-licks-development
Gotta agree with Perks on this one.
btg
New Member
Well, it just shows how bad it is in other wards... where perks is getting huge developments in on bloor, but danforth and main might be appropriate for some bigger buildings - perks is pretty protective of Roncy and I bet he would have fought this more than McMahon did if this were to be built beside the Revue Cinema.... or others Counillors would have fought it in Kensington Market, Little Italy, etc.
Problem is that The Beach and this part of Tornto bodering Scarborough is the lowest density part of TEYCC - so of course we haven't had 83 storey buildings and get little sympathy.
The Beach would be better of if we were part of Scarborough - then there would be some perspective, and perhaps we would be appreciated more as something worth protecting... plus, I have found the TEYCC planners have little sympathy for the views of residents - public participation is a joke because it doesn't matter and all that counts is a narrow misinterpretation of the OP - maybe Scarborough planners are better!
RocketAppliances
Active Member
What some call "bad" others call growth...
This is a modest 6 storey building with 29 units of negligable impact. On the north side of the street to boot - less shadow impact on Queen
If not on a main street, where should growth occur in the Beach?
This is a modest 6 storey building with 29 units of negligable impact. On the north side of the street to boot - less shadow impact on Queen
If not on a main street, where should growth occur in the Beach?
btg
New Member
Well, why do we need any 6 storey buildings in the Beach? although the number of floors is only part of the issue, if the top floors were set back more, the building would be more acceptable.
what people want is the 1987/2004 beach urban design guidelines followed - which call for buildings that look like 3 floors.
The OP and provincial policy do not call for growth to be spread out evenly - there are some parts of the city where nearly every building should be demolished and replaced -like on eglinton or lawrence in scarborough - and other areas where the area should be preserved. the problem with the beach is the past failure of the planning department, and council, to protect the Beach as much as other areas - see the map in the Avenues & Midrise study from 2010 and you can see how many avenues have more protection - the ones in grey.
there are sections of danforth, kingston road, and elsewhere on queen west of woodbine, where 6 story or taller buildings might be ok in our ward. but why not keep a few areas in this city that maintain the old charming character where new buildings respect that scale and character.... the buildings built on queen from 1987 until 2002 did that, and people would accept them as long as the architects were competent and respectful of the character instead of doing glass boxes that could have been designed for anywhere, and will make the beach look no different than any other street.
the planners talk about neighbourhoods, but by that they mean residential sidestreets - these old mainstreets are actually supposed to be protected under the Avenues policy, and the "greatest opportunities" are in the suburbs... we made the case that the planners are wrong at council and in our emails - see www.foqs.ca or www.beachresidents.ca
and yes, this building is on the north side, but it is not providing a good transition to the north - it follows only the planes in the MCR zoning for buildings over 18m, on a site zoned for 12m. even then, they allowed all sorts of exceptions, and likely a building on the south side will follow this precedent, or be worse.
RocketAppliances
Active Member
I get that you like this stretch of Queen but there are a lot of old, pre-war main streets in Toronto that look like this.
If anything I would argue that the Beach has more protection if nothing has been built on this section of Queen since 2002.
If we want to start quoting studies - grey areas don't afford those avenues more protection, in fact, Avenues like Finch, Sheppard and Mt. Pleasant are exempt because the mid-rise recommendations were not in place and larger, denser buildings have been constructed. A sword can cut both ways.
Zoning is meant to be pliable, not restrictive, so I would get use to seeing alot of zoning amendments. Wonder why there is no OP amendment on this site? Because the proposal is consistant with the objectives of the OP - mixed use, avenue.
I dont think every building should be demolished on Queen, its just that Lick's is nothing special so why not redevelop it? Heck, even put a Lick's in underneath.
If anything I would argue that the Beach has more protection if nothing has been built on this section of Queen since 2002.
If we want to start quoting studies - grey areas don't afford those avenues more protection, in fact, Avenues like Finch, Sheppard and Mt. Pleasant are exempt because the mid-rise recommendations were not in place and larger, denser buildings have been constructed. A sword can cut both ways.
Zoning is meant to be pliable, not restrictive, so I would get use to seeing alot of zoning amendments. Wonder why there is no OP amendment on this site? Because the proposal is consistant with the objectives of the OP - mixed use, avenue.
I dont think every building should be demolished on Queen, its just that Lick's is nothing special so why not redevelop it? Heck, even put a Lick's in underneath.
btg
New Member
Problem is that those streets are all going to change by applying the same formula and having the same architects (RAW, for example) designing all the buildings!
The problem with rezonings is that opposed to being rare, when there are reasons for exceptions to the rules, it seems like they have become an normal and accepted part of most building sin this city - things are done as-of-right only if there is no market for the buildings or the zoning is already generous.
Are the 2 buildings on the Lick's site particularly special - well, no, but I don't think that that is the issue here - the issue is that this is the thin end of the wedge - the existing guidelines from 1987, updated in 2004 to comply with the current OP, specifically discouraged land assembly, and called for protecting the small town scale. The planners are to blame for not keeping our Secondary Plan in place in 2002 - and Adam Vaughan also blames Jacobek (though it was Bussin in 2002) for not "fighting hard enough" to keep them!
The problem is that this is not one building alone, but a precedent setting rezoning - this is 3.82 times density where the nearest precedent is 2.64, and 24.2m 9including penthouse) when the next highest are 19.15 (conversion of 17m tall Bellefair church into condos with a 2m C of A Variance ) or 16.5m 92012 Queen, also C of A instead of 12m).
The Op calls for Avenue studies to be done, and also that NO rezonings is to be permitted unless the Segment Study PROVES that there will be "NO Adverse impacts". This was a travesty, and public opinion counts for nothing because no matter what the public wants, planners seem to believe that the OP requires it - an extremely narrow reading of the OP.
Queen has had new condo development since 1987 - and in fact, look through the 1997 Urban Design Handbook and the several ones built were pictured as examples to follow! All we want is for any more to follow those examples - 3 storeys with the 4th floor (or higher, if a site is big enough) set back far enough to not destroy the appearance of a street of 3 storey buildings.
RocketAppliances
Active Member
Torontovibe
Senior Member
I hope these 1 and 2 storey buildings on major streets does change. We are not the small city we used to be and it's such a waste of valuable land. Major streets like Queen or King, outside the downtown core, should have mid-rise buildings from 6 to 12 stories. Not only does that increase the density but it just looks a lot better. Keep the 1 to 5 storey buildings for the small streets but our main streets need to be urban. The Danforth is just begging for some beautiful 8 storey beauties.
Last edited:
Applying one paintbrush to every stretch of main street in the city belies that fact that some main streets work perfectly well now at 2, 3, or 4 storeys, while others don't. Of course many stretches need redevelopment - Danforth (mostly east of Pape) is a good example - but other stretches in the city would not necessary be improved by 6 to 12 storeys. Queen works through the Beach stretch, as does Bloor through Bloor West Village, etc. We need to be more careful with expansion of density where the streets are already performing well, and the replacement of the (sometimes dowdy) charm of the existing structures with all the slickness of modern architecture.
That said, I like this building a lot, but I would not want to lose all of what exists on Queen though the Beach now to a string of Lakehouse Beach Residences. If it ain't broke, be very careful with trying to fix it.
42
That said, I like this building a lot, but I would not want to lose all of what exists on Queen though the Beach now to a string of Lakehouse Beach Residences. If it ain't broke, be very careful with trying to fix it.
42
btg
New Member
Unfortunately, I would hardly call the new midrise and other modern buildings "beautiful" or"charming".
A lot of this is just a general problem of architectural fads, and also the inability of architects to actually design buildings that seem to have some human scale and meaning.
I do love modern buildings from the 50s or earlier eras, but frankly, given a choice between walking through the Kings and looking at the new buildings or looking at the older factories that remain and have been converted, i much prefer the old buildings.
Art deco was the last style that actually seemed to have some scale and character - pomo was a joke, or course - a cartoonish style when at its worst.
Corbu talked about a house as a machine for living in, and unfortunately, that is what most modern architecture is - machines with only a high level aesthetic concept - "one liners". buildings now are mainly about cladding systems and commerce - form follows finance - and more appropriately, form follows marketing. lakehouse was designed like RAWs otehr buildings to look good in ads aimed at young condo buyers. in the end, this is about selling condo units, then taking the money and running - running on to the next one on the next site.
the lakehouse started out as a glass box, with these flying brick donuts grafted on - the design has changed and the donuts grew feet. it still doesn't fit in.
a street full of lakehouses will be even less interesting and less vibrant that the condos being built west of the skydone/rogers centre. those are big enough that the massing has some complexity, though at the street it still seems very sterile.
given a choice between walking around toronto with all its new condos, and walking around ANY city in Cuba, with its 100 year old fake neo colonial buildings, or early art deco or art moderne buildings, i know which one i would prefer.
urbandreamer
recession proof
^You have a point. I was in Montreal recently and was in an area filled with brand new condo developments. The area overall was sterile and boring (even though Mtl architecture on some levels is superior to Toronto's) so I fled to an older established area--the Plateau. It just feels so much better, homely, well-lived and vibrant.
That being said, a dozen or so 6-8s projects filling in some holes in the fabric--strip plazas, parking lots, ugly buildings--is welcome anywhere. It may not be totally appropriate here--but the developer owns this land today and it will proceed.
That being said, a dozen or so 6-8s projects filling in some holes in the fabric--strip plazas, parking lots, ugly buildings--is welcome anywhere. It may not be totally appropriate here--but the developer owns this land today and it will proceed.
btg
New Member
Well, it still has to go to council, and for $125, anyone can appeal to the OMB.... and we could always have an economic meltdown worse than 2008/2009.
I think that toronto needs to keep a few areas intact, as they were built, with only appropriate new development allowed, so that there is a wide variety, some completely new areas, some completely old areas, and some areas that are an evolving mix.
I loved going to South Beach in Miami, where there is block after block of art deco, because th whole area was flattened by a hurricane and then rebuilt within a 10 year period. i grew up in don mils, where all the buildings were similarly from 1953-1963 - there was a unity to the area, and it is a shame where monster homes have lead to the demolition of some of the best homes designed in that era. if there were stricter architectural controls, and if development only occurred where the existing buildings were clearly ripe for replacement, then perhaps a couple of modern buildings in The Beach would be ok. problem is, what will happen over time is that the old ones will disappear on any site where development is possible, but there is no plan -the Segment Study is useless and if the beach should have had a proper Avenue study done with the participation of residents and written up by independent consultants working for the city, not the developer.
with this project, it was clear from the beginning that the planning department wants 6 storey buildings, regardless of the arguments to the contrary or the views of the community.